"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
. net...

"AL" wrote in message

The problem is there is no need for a dollar coin since we already have a
dollar bill. The idea was obviously conceived by the US Department of
Redundancy Department...

But the dollar coin will greatly outlast the paper bill saving money.

Saving *who* money?
No matter how much money the gov't supposedly *saves* it never give the
*savings* back to whom its been stolen.

Don wrote:
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
. net...
"AL" wrote in message
The problem is there is no need for a dollar coin since we already have a
dollar bill. The idea was obviously conceived by the US Department of
Redundancy Department...
But the dollar coin will greatly outlast the paper bill saving money.

Saving *who* money?
No matter how much money the gov't supposedly *saves* it never give the
*savings* back to whom its been stolen.

Think of it as preventing an expenditure that need not
be incurred.

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:18:44 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Hayes wrote:

Taking plastic as a merchant, will cost you an additional 2%, minimum.
It's utterly foolish to take plastic, at a garage sale no less.

Browsing one night I found a used truck I liked.

Told the salesman I'd have to go home for a check.

Instead, he accepted my American Express card for $11,400.

Evidently he computed that the certain discounted Amex price was worth more
than the possibility of me returning with a check.

You must have been paying way too much for that truck. Every time I
have tried to use one of my rebate cards at a car dealer after I
negotiated a price they wanted to renegotiate the deal.

It's not uncommon for a dealer to want to renegotiate even if you
offer to pay cash. There's profit in financing.

But I think HeyBub's point was that a dealer knows that the odds of
someone returning with a check in that kind of scenario are not high.
Better to sell the car for $11,400 on the spot rather than risk not
selling it at all.

In article ,
says...
Mike Hartigan wrote:
In article , no-
says...

[...] Sellers control pricing.

In a free market economy, *Buyers* control pricing.

They are in a position to set prices so a
"fair" rounding scheme always produces rounding in their favor.
This adds up, and is essentially free money. I don't see how a business
could pass it up.

They can't ingore competition. Imagine that a particular style of
widget was previously priced at $1.97. If seller A rounds up to
$2.00 and Seller B rounds down to $1.95, who do you suppose makes the
sale?

[...]

I would expect that, like most other things, competition on price
alone would be ineffective.
If they are in the same consignment shop, B might have the edge.
If A is next door and B is across town, B's price is never seen.

All else being equal, the lower price gets the sale. Obviously, if
one store offers a better deal in terms of location, ambience, etc,
etc, etc, then the equation changes. The buying experience is part
of what you're buying. The consumer may feel that he's getting a
better 'product' at one store even though the widgets, themselves,
are identical. But that's a whole 'nuther discussion.

I would expect that, like most other things, competition on price
alone would be ineffective.
If they are in the same consignment shop, B might have the edge.
If A is next door and B is across town, B's price is never seen.

So?

Rounding UP makes the calculations easier for everyone. At worse, it will
cost comsumers $.04 per item.

Add it up if you will. The most lazy and stupid consumer might pay an
extra $50 the first year. After a year things will sort out.

On Feb 21, 3:20 am, "John Gilmer" wrote:

Rounding UP makes the calculations easier for everyone. At worse, it will
cost comsumers $.04 per item.

??? That's a new one on me. How is rounding UP any easier or less
difficult than rounding DOWN?

On Feb 19, 12:53 pm, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:08:37 -0500, "John Gilmer"

wrote:

Better yet, let's dump pennies and the dollar bill.

Not so fast there!

The "Penny Dump" is LONG overdue. Because of the extra effort when making
change it $.01 piece is a drag on the economy.

The law should require that transactions be "rounded up" to the nearest $.05
unless the seller decides on a different policy. That way, when you get
change you don't get your cents.

For reasons of fairness, that should be "rounded" rather than "rounded
up".

For reasons of sanity, the law should not dictate *anything* with
regard to prices except that pennies will no longer be produced. The
retailers will then round up, down, or whatever other direction the
consumers decide to support. Many of us are old enough to remember
the disaster created by the government pricing laws of the 1970's.

John Gilmer wrote:

(not sure who wrote
I would expect that, like most other things, competition on price
alone would be ineffective.
If they are in the same consignment shop, B might have the edge.
If A is next door and B is across town, B's price is never seen.


So?
Rounding UP makes the calculations easier for everyone. At worse, it will
cost comsumers $.04 per item.

Recommendations that anything be "rounded" up OR down to the nearest
nickel tells me somebody skipped class the day rounding was taught.
Rounding is to the NEAREST DECIMAL POSITION, not to the nearest half
decimal position! If you eliminate the penny you must eliminate the
nickel - it resides in the same decimal position as the penny. Or are
you going to tell me all the accounting systems out there already know
how to "round" to the nearest nickel without having to be modified? I
think somebody needs to dust off their 5th grade arithmetic book - the
topic doesn't even rise to the level of math.



Add it up if you will. The most lazy and stupid consumer might pay an
extra $50 the first year. After a year things will sort out.


"things will sort out" - WHAT could that ever mean?



But if we DID eliminate the penny and nickel:

Having programmed accounting systems in a past life I can see a
wonderful world of opportunity opening up for crooks. The
rounding/truncating to the nearest decimal position of $.1 in a
multi-million transaction a day, or even hour, system could feed
enormous wealth to a hidden slush fund. You sometimes hear about
schemes where the fraction of pennies truncated are accumulated in a
hidden account? Well think 10 times that in terms of what would be
truncated in a $.10 system. Fortunately we can rest assured no one would
be that dishonest...


What we have works, sort of. If anything needs to be changed I would
think backing up the currency with something of real value rather than
promises would be a good start.

In article , AL wrote:

Recommendations that anything be "rounded" up OR down to the nearest
nickel tells me somebody skipped class the day rounding was taught.

Yep -- and methinks it was you.

Rounding is to the NEAREST DECIMAL POSITION, not to the nearest half
decimal position!

Not true. Rounding can be to any arbitrary regular interval: the nearest dime,
nearest nickel, nearest quarter, whatever.

If you eliminate the penny you must eliminate the
nickel - it resides in the same decimal position as the penny.

Absolute nonsense.

Or are
you going to tell me all the accounting systems out there already know
how to "round" to the nearest nickel without having to be modified?

And how many accounting systems do you suppose are capable of rounding to the
nearest *dime* without being modified?

I think somebody needs to dust off their 5th grade arithmetic book - the
topic doesn't even rise to the level of math.

I quite agree; you certainly do.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

The only real answer would be to revalue the dollar. Increase its
value by a factor of ten. Essentially, push the decimal point one
position to the left on all prices - overnight. A penny now buys what
a dime bought yesterday, a dime now buys what a dollar bought. A 50
cent candy bar is now a nickel. Gasoline is 23.9 cents per gallon, a
gallon of milk, a loaf of bread, and a lb of butter are 20 cents each,
a McDonald's burger is a dime, large fries about 15 cents, minimum
wage is 62 cents an hour, a newspaper is a nickel, a lb of ground beef
is about a quarter, a haircut is a buck and a half, a barrel of crude
is about $5, the median price of a single family home is about
$20,000, a new car about $2,000, cross country airfare about $50, a
movie ticket is 75 cents, etc, etc, etc.

Best of all - we keep the penny!

On Feb 21, 9:43 am, AL wrote:
John Gilmer wrote:

(not sure who wrote

I would expect that, like most other things, competition on price
alone would be ineffective.
If they are in the same consignment shop, B might have the edge.
If A is next door and B is across town, B's price is never seen.
So?
Rounding UP makes the calculations easier for everyone. At worse, it will
cost comsumers $.04 per item.

Recommendations that anything be "rounded" up OR down to the nearest
nickel tells me somebody skipped class the day rounding was taught.
Rounding is to the NEAREST DECIMAL POSITION, not to the nearest half
decimal position! If you eliminate the penny you must eliminate the
nickel - it resides in the same decimal position as the penny. Or are
you going to tell me all the accounting systems out there already know
how to "round" to the nearest nickel without having to be modified? I
think somebody needs to dust off their 5th grade arithmetic book - the
topic doesn't even rise to the level of math.

Add it up if you will. The most lazy and stupid consumer might pay an
extra $50 the first year. After a year things will sort out.

"things will sort out" - WHAT could that ever mean?

But if we DID eliminate the penny and nickel:

Having programmed accounting systems in a past life I can see a
wonderful world of opportunity opening up for crooks. The
rounding/truncating to the nearest decimal position of $.1 in a
multi-million transaction a day, or even hour, system could feed
enormous wealth to a hidden slush fund. You sometimes hear about
schemes where the fraction of pennies truncated are accumulated in a
hidden account? Well think 10 times that in terms of what would be
truncated in a $.10 system. Fortunately we can rest assured no one would
be that dishonest...

What we have works, sort of. If anything needs to be changed I would
think backing up the currency with something of real value rather than
promises would be a good start.

AL wrote:
Rick Brandt wrote:
Harry K wrote:

Remember the Susan B Anthony and Sacajawea coins? Well the dumb *&)s
did it again. I just got some of the new dollar coins and again they
are almost identical in size to a quarter. Close enough that you have
to look to be sure. Seems to me the idiots were puzzled when people
didn't use the old dollar coins. They didn't listen apparently when
told that the major objection was the size, too close to a quarter.

Ah well, never underestimate the stupidity of beuracracy!

Harry K


Is it a problem for you that a one dollar bill is the same size as a
fifty?


The problem is there is no need for a dollar coin since we already have
a dollar bill. The idea was obviously conceived by the US Department of
Redundancy Department...

AL

A few years ago, when much of Europe switched to a unified currency (the
euro) they researched the issue and concluded that it would save
printing costs if they eliminated the smaller bills. I think the
smallest bill they issue is the 5euro (about equivalent to 5 dollars)
and everything smaller is coinage. It seems to work well for them, and
I'd just as soon not be hauling around a wad of tattered ones, that
probably last about 12 months before needing to be replaced.

They can't ingore competition. Imagine that a particular style of
widget was previously priced at $1.97. If seller A rounds up to
$2.00 and Seller B rounds down to $1.95, who do you suppose makes the
sale?

Actually there is no reason whatsoever to change any of the marked
prices of individual items. Where the rounding will take place is at
the checkout, where the prices are added up, sales tax applied, and then
that total is rounded up or down IF you are paying cash. If you are
writing a check or using plastic, the total in odd cents goes in and
then shows up on your statement.

Just because there are no longer any pennies in circulation doesn't
restrict anyone from paying an amount not an even 5 cent multiple unless
you are paying cash. Then its rounded.

[Do your worst. Flame shield in place.] :-)

--
Rich Greenberg N Ft Myers, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 239 543 1353
Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67
Canines:Val, Red, Shasta & Casey (RIP), Red & Zero, Siberians Owner:Chinook-L
Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L

"Rich Greenberg" wrote in message
...
They can't ingore competition. Imagine that a particular style of
widget was previously priced at $1.97. If seller A rounds up to
$2.00 and Seller B rounds down to $1.95, who do you suppose makes the
sale?

Actually there is no reason whatsoever to change any of the marked
prices of individual items. Where the rounding will take place is at
the checkout, where the prices are added up, sales tax applied, and then
that total is rounded up or down IF you are paying cash. If you are
writing a check or using plastic, the total in odd cents goes in and
then shows up on your statement.

Just because there are no longer any pennies in circulation doesn't
restrict anyone from paying an amount not an even 5 cent multiple unless
you are paying cash. Then its rounded.

[Do your worst. Flame shield in place.] :-)

Even if the feds and banks expend the labor to pull them from circulation,
there are probably 50 years worth of pennies sitting in sock drawers and
coffee cans all over the US.

Of course, people would probably avoid spending them unless they had to,
since they would now be 'collectible'.

Screw rounding- I'll leave the stuff on the counter and walk out if they try
that, unless it is in my favor.

aem sends...

aem sends...

wrote:
"Rich Greenberg" wrote in message
...

They can't ingore competition. Imagine that a particular style of
widget was previously priced at $1.97. If seller A rounds up to
$2.00 and Seller B rounds down to $1.95, who do you suppose makes the
sale?

Actually there is no reason whatsoever to change any of the marked
prices of individual items. Where the rounding will take place is at
the checkout, where the prices are added up, sales tax applied, and then
that total is rounded up or down IF you are paying cash. If you are
writing a check or using plastic, the total in odd cents goes in and
then shows up on your statement.

Just because there are no longer any pennies in circulation doesn't
restrict anyone from paying an amount not an even 5 cent multiple unless
you are paying cash. Then its rounded.

[Do your worst. Flame shield in place.] :-)


Even if the feds and banks expend the labor to pull them from circulation,
there are probably 50 years worth of pennies sitting in sock drawers and
coffee cans all over the US.

Of course, people would probably avoid spending them unless they had to,
since they would now be 'collectible'.

Screw rounding- I'll leave the stuff on the counter and walk out if they try
that, unless it is in my favor.

aem sends...

aem sends...



Get a grip... let's say hypothetically that you make $25 an hour. If it
takes you more than 1.44 seconds to pick up a penny, it's not worth your
time.

I'm obviously not allowing for taxes etc. but you get the idea. It's
not going to get any better in the future, either.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Mark Lloyd wrote:

For reasons of fairness, that should be "rounded" rather than "rounded
up".

Not that it really makes much difference, but, rounding by fives
seems more fair than decimal rounding. In decimal there is a middle
(number 5,) and there has to be a convention wether to round it up or
down. Between 5 and 10 cents there are an even number, so 6 and 7 are
rounded down to 5 and 8 an 9 are rounded up.

Dave

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:
Rounding is to the NEAREST DECIMAL POSITION, not to the nearest half
decimal position!

Not true. Rounding can be to any arbitrary regular interval: the
nearest dime, nearest nickel, nearest quarter, whatever.

I don't think it has to be a regular interval. E.g., "round to the
nearest power of two" would be a perfectly well-defined and acceptable
request. Or "round to the nearest prime number".

--
--Tim Smith

wrote in :

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:11:19 +0000 (UTC), (Rich
Greenberg) wrote:

Actually there is no reason whatsoever to change any of the marked
prices of individual items. Where the rounding will take place is at
the checkout, where the prices are added up, sales tax applied, and then
that total is rounded up or down IF you are paying cash. If you are
writing a check or using plastic, the total in odd cents goes in and
then shows up on your statement.

Just because there are no longer any pennies in circulation doesn't
restrict anyone from paying an amount not an even 5 cent multiple unless
you are paying cash. Then its rounded.

[Do your worst. Flame shield in place.] :-)

--


Great point. We have been buying gas priced to the 1/10h of a cent for
the best part of a century and there are not any "mil" coins.

Yes.After reading his very sensible post,I had to smack my forehead and ask
myself "why didn't*I* think of that?". DUH....

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Not@home" wrote:

A few years ago, when much of Europe switched to a unified currency (the
euro) they researched the issue and concluded that it would save
printing costs if they eliminated the smaller bills. I think the
smallest bill they issue is the 5euro (about equivalent to 5 dollars)
and everything smaller is coinage. It seems to work well for them, and
I'd just as soon not be hauling around a wad of tattered ones, that
probably last about 12 months before needing to be replaced.

Instead of hauling around a wad of tattered bills, if you lived in
Europe you'd be hauling around a batch of HEAVY pocket-busting
coinage. (Think Seinfeld where Kramer tries to pay for a pizza
(calzone) with his accumulated small change.) The Europeans are pretty
smart about lots of things but this isn't one of them.

As to the penny, if people really wanted to eliminate it they'd have
done so already. It's quite feasible for the merchants to round up or
down or even to round always in the customer's favor thereby not
incurring any complaints but they don't. I only have one place, a fish
store, where the merchant effectively lops off the last digit and
sometimes even more. I've had totals of (say) $24.37 and he has asked
for $24.00. But this is a rarity. And the fish store is an upscale
super-expensive establishment.

Try it yourself. Go to the supermarket and spend (say) $3.51. Tender
$4.00 and watch while the cashier gives you exactly 49 cents change.
If they don't have enough pennies they'll sometimes ask you if you
have one cent. No just giving you two quarters. So contrary to the
"put 'em in a big jar" crowd I find it highly advantageous (not to
mention less lazy) to try and pay the exact amount of the bill which
necessitates carrying and using change. After all that's what it's
for.

For those who say the "change jar" is a way of saving I suggest they
look into the concept of "present value".

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:11:19 +0000 (UTC), (Rich
Greenberg) wrote:

Actually there is no reason whatsoever to change any of the marked
prices of individual items. Where the rounding will take place is at
the checkout, where the prices are added up, sales tax applied, and then
that total is rounded up or down IF you are paying cash. If you are

writing a check or using plastic, the total in odd cents goes in and
then shows up on your statement.

I suspect that the Feds will quickly tell banks to NOT cut checks for other
that multiples of $.05.

I do have some D.R.I.P.s that carry the number of shares to 5 decimal
points. BUT they always round to the $.01 when the dividend is calculated.
That's the number that's reported to the I.R.S.


Just because there are no longer any pennies in circulation doesn't
restrict anyone from paying an amount not an even 5 cent multiple unless
you are paying cash. Then its rounded.

[Do your worst. Flame shield in place.] :-)

--


Great point. We have been buying gas priced to the 1/10h of a cent for
the best part of a century and there are not any "mil" coins.

Un huh. But the transaction is rounded UP to the nearest $.01.
Likewise when you buy ONE of something that's 3/$1.00 it's rounded UP.

When the government mandates that bank accounts be rounded, that calculation
may well used "standard rules the 1,2 rounding down and 3,4 rounding up.

The only time they ever have to do any rounding at all is if you are
getting change in cash.

You can say that all you want, but the banking system doesn't permit
transfers of a fractions of a cent. The system now works down to one cent.

Were the feds to want to get rid of the $.01 coin, they would also require
the banks to bar transfers measured smaller than $.05.

If you think some "wise guy" banker would refuse to go along, you don't
understand the banking system.

In article ,
says...

The only time they ever have to do any rounding at all is if you are
getting change in cash.


You can say that all you want, but the banking system doesn't permit
transfers of a fractions of a cent. The system now works down to one cent.

Were the feds to want to get rid of the $.01 coin, they would also require
the banks to bar transfers measured smaller than $.05.


Huh? I live in a country where the one and two cent coins were
eliminated a long time ago. And last year, the five cent coins
were eliminated. Those changes resulted in rounding for CASH
payments.

However, if I pay by cheque or bank card, it is done at the exact
amount.

For example, supermarket checkouts display an exact price, to the
cent. Paying cash results in a rounded price. Paying by cheque
or card results in the exact price.

I am perfectly free to do cheque or electronic transactions with
the last digit lower than the smallest coin (ten cents.) The
banks are perfectly free to, say, pay me interest with the last
digit of less than ten cents, to my savings account.


--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
AL wrote:
...

The problem is there is no need for a dollar coin since we already
have a dollar bill. The idea was obviously conceived by the US
Department of Redundancy Department...

AL

Better yet, let's dump pennies s n i p



I read (somewhere) that the penny is worth about 1.2 cents in material.
If material costs continue to rise, they're gonna have to find something
else to manufacture it out of (plastic?) or else discontinue it. Either
way, you might want to start stockpiling all your pennies now, in the
eventuality that you'll be able to sell them for a profit.

"Tockk" wrote in message
. ..

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
AL wrote:
...

The problem is there is no need for a dollar coin since we already
have a dollar bill. The idea was obviously conceived by the US
Department of Redundancy Department...

AL

Better yet, let's dump pennies s n i p



I read (somewhere) that the penny is worth about 1.2 cents in material.
If material costs continue to rise, they're gonna have to find something
else to manufacture it out of (plastic?) or else discontinue it. Either
way, you might want to start stockpiling all your pennies now, in the
eventuality that you'll be able to sell them for a profit.

According to comments on the coin collecting ng, there is a recent law
making it ilegal to melt pennys, I guess due to the expense of making new
ones.

Bob

wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

The only time they ever have to do any rounding at all is if you are
getting change in cash.


You can say that all you want, but the banking system doesn't permit
transfers of a fractions of a cent. The system now works down to one
cent.

Were the feds to want to get rid of the $.01 coin, they would also
require
the banks to bar transfers measured smaller than $.05.


Huh? I live in a country where the one and two cent coins were
eliminated a long time ago. And last year, the five cent coins
were eliminated. Those changes resulted in rounding for CASH
payments.

What can I say. In the US you just can't write a check for $10.005 and
expect it to clear as written. Most likely it would be taken as $10.

(Believe it or not, the commercial code permits modification of the amount
under certain circumstances.)

However, if I pay by cheque or bank card, it is done at the exact
amount.

Well, good for you. Frankly, I think your bank regulators made a mistake.

In article ,
John Gilmer wrote:

What can I say. In the US you just can't write a check for $10.005 and
expect it to clear as written. Most likely it would be taken as $10.

John,
Wake up and smell the roses. Nobody except you has suggested that you
can make a transaction for a fraction of a cent. What everybody else
agrees on is that even with no pennies in circulation, you can still
write a check or make a credit/debit card transaction for an integer
number of cents which is not a multiple of 5 cents.

--
Rich Greenberg N Ft Myers, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 239 543 1353
Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67
Canines:Val, Red, Shasta & Casey (RIP), Red & Zero, Siberians Owner:Chinook-L
Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L

John,
Wake up and smell the roses. Nobody except you has suggested that you
can make a transaction for a fraction of a cent.

You miss the point.

The government can set rules about what the smallest increment may be
transferred. Right now it is $.01. The government would simply change
that to $.05.

What everybody else
agrees on is that even with no pennies in circulation, you can still
write a check or make a credit/debit card transaction for an integer
number of cents which is not a multiple of 5 cents.

Well, "everybody else" is wrong. If you permit checks to be cut for
$10.03 then folks will expect to cash them for $10.03. That alone will
maintain the demand for the $.01 piece. And that's why any rational
approach to getting rid of the $.01 piece would require that the banks stop
accepting checks to the nearest $.01 and that the banks start keeping
accounts to the nearest $.05.




--

In article , "John Gilmer" wrote:


John,
Wake up and smell the roses. Nobody except you has suggested that you
can make a transaction for a fraction of a cent.

You miss the point.

The government can set rules about what the smallest increment may be
transferred. Right now it is $.01. The government would simply change
that to $.05.

Certainly they *could*. That they *would* is nothing more than an unsupported
assertion on your part.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article ,
John Gilmer wrote:


John,
Wake up and smell the roses. Nobody except you has suggested that you
can make a transaction for a fraction of a cent.

You miss the point.

The government can set rules about what the smallest increment may be
transferred. Right now it is $.01. The government would simply change
that to $.05.

Sure, they could, but IMHO it is very unlikely they would do so.

What everybody else
agrees on is that even with no pennies in circulation, you can still
write a check or make a credit/debit card transaction for an integer
number of cents which is not a multiple of 5 cents.

Well, "everybody else" is wrong. If you permit checks to be cut for
$10.03 then folks will expect to cash them for $10.03. That alone will
maintain the demand for the $.01 piece. And that's why any rational
approach to getting rid of the $.01 piece would require that the banks stop
accepting checks to the nearest $.01 and that the banks start keeping
accounts to the nearest $.05.

We have the examples posted here that in other countries where the
smallest coin had been removed that non-cash transactions are still done
and processed in multiples of that coin's value.

--
Rich Greenberg N Ft Myers, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 239 543 1353
Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67
Canines:Val, Red, Shasta & Casey (RIP), Red & Zero, Siberians Owner:Chinook-L
Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L

The government can set rules about what the smallest increment may be
transferred. Right now it is $.01. The government would simply
change
that to $.05.

Certainly they *could*. That they *would* is nothing more than an
unsupported
assertion on your part.

Well, sport, if they didn't the demand for the $.01 coin would continue and
the withdrawal of the $.01 would not stick.

Like it or not, if the government wants folks to change their currency
habits they have to eliminate both the demand and the supply for the "old
ways."

That's how the UK did it over 20 years ago.

With TWO false starts with the $1 coin, I suspect the US will think a little
harder.

If the government let's the banking system continue with the $.01 they will
not get rid of the $.01 coin. Perhaps private persons may produce them (if
a $.01 isn't formally "legal" then it can't be illegal to make $.01 sized
tokens.)

The government can set rules about what the smallest increment may be
transferred. Right now it is $.01. The government would simply
change
that to $.05.

Sure, they could, but IMHO it is very unlikely they would do so.

If "they" don't there will still be $.01 "tokens" in circulation for a LONG
time.

It all depends upon whether the US government has learned anything from the
failed attempts to get rid of the $1 bill.


What everybody else
agrees on is that even with no pennies in circulation, you can still
write a check or make a credit/debit card transaction for an integer
number of cents which is not a multiple of 5 cents.

Well, "everybody else" is wrong. If you permit checks to be cut for
$10.03 then folks will expect to cash them for $10.03. That alone will
maintain the demand for the $.01 piece. And that's why any rational
approach to getting rid of the $.01 piece would require that the banks
stop
accepting checks to the nearest $.01 and that the banks start keeping
accounts to the nearest $.05.

We have the examples posted here that in other countries where the
smallest coin had been removed that non-cash transactions are still done
and processed in multiples of that coin's value.

So?


--
Rich Greenberg N Ft Myers, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 239 543
1353
Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since
CP-67
Canines:Val, Red, Shasta & Casey (RIP), Red & Zero, Siberians
Owner:Chinook-L
Retired at the beach Asst
Owner:Sibernet-L

In article , "John Gilmer" wrote:


The government can set rules about what the smallest increment may be
transferred. Right now it is $.01. The government would simply
change
that to $.05.

Certainly they *could*. That they *would* is nothing more than an
unsupported
assertion on your part.

Well, sport, if they didn't the demand for the $.01 coin would continue and
the withdrawal of the $.01 would not stick.

We're talking about checks and EFTs here. Who needs one-cent coins for that?

I repeat: unsupported assertion on your part, based on nothing more than
assumptions.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "John Gilmer" wrote:

The government can set rules about what the smallest increment may be
transferred. Right now it is $.01. The government would simply
change
that to $.05.

Sure, they could, but IMHO it is very unlikely they would do so.

If "they" don't there will still be $.01 "tokens" in circulation for a LONG
time.

Q: What does that have to do with whether checks and EFTs will be permitted in
penny increments?

A: nothing.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Bob" wrote
According to comments on the coin collecting ng, there is a recent law
making it ilegal to melt pennys, I guess due to the expense of making new
ones.

Another silly unenforceable law.
There are now more laws on the books than there are citizens in the country.
Someday everything will be against the law.

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 23:27:35 -0600, someone wrote:

The problem is there is no need for a dollar coin since we already have
a dollar bill.

And the very idea is to eliminate the dollar bill.


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

"Don" wrote in message
...
"Bob" wrote
According to comments on the coin collecting ng, there is a recent law
making it ilegal to melt pennys, I guess due to the expense of making new
ones.

Another silly unenforceable law.
There are now more laws on the books than there are citizens in the
country.
Someday everything will be against the law.
Give Junior awhile- he'll bring back Prez Wilson's law about dissing the
govt being a felony.

aem sends....

On the general subject of money, coins, and the like, I found the following at:
http://gocomics.typepad.com/the_sandbox/


Author:MAJOR Michael Irwin
============================
It’s the little things that get our attention –- in this case, five cents.

At overseas locations, the base economy is penny-less. AAFES (Army and Air Force Exchange Service) does not use pennies; all prices our rounded to the nearest nickel. The cost of shipping pennies is more than the value of the pennies themselves.

Here in Iraq they take it further; no coins at all. But they don’t round to the nearest dollar. Instead, they issue "pogs". These mini-gift-certificates are used in place of coins. On one side is the AAFES logo and some suitably patriotic image, and on the other a 5¢ 10¢ or 25¢ notation. AAFES makes it clear that "pogs" are cash value as depicted, and can be redeemed at any AAFES world wide for the full value. And really, I don’t want carry a bunch of loose change in a combat environment. This program makes sense.

So I have not seen a real coin in several months.

While shopping at the local BX to get something or other I handed the cashier some dollar bills, and put my hand out, expecting a few pogs. An odd weight settled in my hand. I looked down and Lo, there in my hand was a nickel! My two colleagues and I stopped talking and all gazed in wonder at the coin. It was as if there was an angelic chorus in the background, and the image of Jefferson seemed to glow. It was a real nickel. A tangible piece of home! A no-kidding bit of America!! It was a remarkable moment...

To us, but not to the cashier. She looked at the slack-jawed idiot aircrew standing in front of her, staring, then looked at the coin in my hand for a moment, then looked at the three dummies again.

“Hey, it’s a nickel. Get over it! NEXT!”

"Harry K" wrote in
ups.com:

Remember the Susan B Anthony and Sacajawea coins? Well the dumb
*&)s did it again. I just got some of the new dollar coins and
again they are almost identical in size to a quarter. Close
enough that you have to look to be sure. Seems to me the idiots
were puzzled when people didn't use the old dollar coins. They
didn't listen apparently when told that the major objection was
the size, too close to a quarter.

Ah well, never underestimate the stupidity of beuracracy!

Harry K


I never carried/used the Anthony dollar coins, but I did make a few
bucks now and then because I received them as quarters when I bought
something and received change. I was sorry to see then go.

It's not uncommon for a dealer to want to renegotiate even if you
offer to pay cash. There's profit in financing.

But I think HeyBub's point was that a dealer knows that the odds of
someone returning with a check in that kind of scenario are not high.
Better to sell the car for $11,400 on the spot rather than risk not
selling it at all.

Yep!

It's just a case of "working the numbers." Folks using "plastic" spend
more because they don't have to worry about how much cash they have in
pocket or even the bank.

From the view of a small businessman, the advantage of "cash" is that you
can take it "under the table" and not pay taxes on it.

"Off the books" income is worth 20% (more or less) than "on the books"
income. That's a much larger margin than the 2% (plus, sometimes, $.50)
the credit card company might charge.